Train robbers should never be glamorised

I have been reading an article about Ronnie Biggs. The aged train robber who is about to leave prison to spend the rest of his days in the care of the NHS. A man immortalised in British history for pulling of the Great Train Robbery of 1963. He originally fled to Australia after escaping prison and from there went to Brazil. His life there was described as "indolent" where he lived on his cut of the swag from the robbery. He paid no taxes to the UK and when his health began to fail then decided to return, serve the rest of his sentence and soon now leave jail. He can barely communicate and will need full time care. He will need the full support of the NHS, but his life has been lived abroad. Although no individual died during the train robbery the driver of the train Jack Mills was hit over the head with an iron bar, something which he never recovered from, and never worked again. It was Jack Mills who suffered for the rest of his life while Biggs lived it up in a hot country from money he had stolen.

Perhaps it is karma coming back to Biggs for his actions, the way his is now. However, I can't help think he needed a way out of Brazil back to his home country and he knew his health wasn't going to hold out. But in returning to the UK he could reap the benefits of a free democratic country where the health service will cost him nothing. If Biggs loved Brazil so much he should be sent back there after doing his time in prison. He should be sent back to their state health system. Because here he has not contributed at all. His indolent life style has kept him happy for so long. Never has there been a word of remorse or regret for his actions, he and his gang owe Jack Mills a life, because it was Jack Mills who suffered from their crimes.

Personally I think his name should be removed from the history books. As for Jack he was the real hero for living the rest of his life with the disabilities they gave him.

Lenient sentences for homicide

I have just seen the news and there was an article about a man who got a 4 1/2 years prison sentence for homicide. In this case he wanted to enter a pub but was denied, so in a petulant manner he lobbed a beer bottle in through an open door. The bottle hit a woman, as it did so it somehow managed to slash her neck and she died. The complete ignorance of this man led to an innocent woman's death. But his ignorance paid off because of the leniency of the sentence. This compares to another case which has passed sentencing recently.

A woman queuing up in a supermarket was verbally abused by a teenager, in her upset state she made a phone call to her boyfriend who was sitting outside in the car. He came into the supermarket to console his girlfriend and asked her who it was who had been so obnoxious. She then pointed over towards a que where the teenager had just been served by the checkout staff. The boyfriend, also a body building, strode to the que and hit a man waiting there, the man collapsed and his head struck the floor. It was the wrong person, a completely innocent shopper. The result was homicide, the sentence a mere 4 years. The girlfriend also got sentenced to 18 months.

I can only fathom the judge in each case has decided the deaths were accidental in nature so thought the sentences should be lenient. However, in both cases there was an element of purposefulness. One for revenge of not being let into the pub, the other for revenge of having his girlfriend verbally harassed. Yet someone died, someone who had a family, friends and a useful life. They were murdered by their assailants ignorance. I can't help feel these are examples of excessive leniency. I ask should homicide whether intentional or unintentional begin with the maximum sentence for which murder in the first degree can be given? Then as the case unravels different sentencing regimes become available. We have to ask the question if you intend to hit someone do you understand this act of violence could result in their death? Saying I didn't think he would die has no excuse, understanding people die from head injuries should go without saying. When a man throws an empty bottle into a crowd or enclosed space, you have to ask does he conceivably understand the bottle could actually maim or kill someone if it hits them? If the answer is yes then it is murder. These are cases of ignorance and murder.

Perhaps what the judges did was a bit of mental arithmetic in the accidental murder case, in reality playing a statistical chances. Calculating what is the chance of someone dieing when punched or having a bottle hit them? In addition they would of considered intention and premeditation. I am sure the defence for both accused cases said it was a freak accident and there was no intention to kill, there was no motivation, the murderers didn't know their victims and were not actually gaining from their action. In each case they were insulted and sort action to calm their grievances. So because of their ill feelings an Innocent person dies. Yet we all lose it at times and all manage to contain the monster, or alternatively let out aggression in some other way without committing homicide. Of course with these prison sentences their lives will never be the same, if employed they'd of lost their jobs. They will lose their liberty for a short period and live in a austere environment. But at least they are alive.

The victims will never see their loved ones again, see a sunset, or every have the chance to hug, kiss and love those they so do love. No chance was given to say goodbye. The question is, were the sentences too short and too lenient?

What would your answer be?